Month: July 2010

A federal judge has halted work at a 10,800-acre site in Hardee County that would bring mining closer to the Peace River and Charlotte Harbor watershed.

Middle District of Florida Judge Henry Adams ruled that local environmental groups stand a good chance of success in their lawsuit that accuses the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of violating federal law by granting the Mosaic Co. a mining permit June 14 without sufficient review.

The temporary restraining order will halt operations at the site until a hearing on a more permanent injunction scheduled for July 22. Mosaic were preparing the site until the order but had not yet begun mining.

Damage to the Peace River and Charlotte Harbor and their headwaters is “sufficiently likely” if mining starts, Adams said in his order.

In their lawsuit, environmental groups claim the Corps of Engineers failed to hold a public meeting on the project and should have conducted an Environmental Impact Statement. The National Environmental Policy Act mandates such a statement if a project significantly affects the environment.

Corps officials determined that the environmental assessment was not needed despite a request from the Environmental Protection Agency, nearby counties and citizens that one be conducted, according to the lawsuit.

Corps officials did not return a call for comment.

The Corps has since agreed to conduct an environmental assessment on the phosphate mining impacts on the Peace River basin.

“You’re supposed to do those up front,” said Tom Reese, a lawyer representing the Sierra Club.

A federal judge has halted work at a 10,800-acre site in Hardee County that would bring mining closer to the Peace River and Charlotte Harbor watershed.

Middle District of Florida Judge Henry Adams ruled that local environmental groups stand a good chance of success in their lawsuit that accuses the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of violating federal law by granting the Mosaic Co. a mining permit June 14 without sufficient review.

The temporary restraining order will halt operations at the site until a hearing on a more permanent injunction scheduled for July 22. Mosaic were preparing the site until the order but had not yet begun mining.

Damage to the Peace River and Charlotte Harbor and their headwaters is “sufficiently likely” if mining starts, Adams said in his order.

In their lawsuit, environmental groups claim the Corps of Engineers failed to hold a public meeting on the project and should have conducted an Environmental Impact Statement. The National Environmental Policy Act mandates such a statement if a project significantly affects the environment.

Corps officials determined that the environmental assessment was not needed despite a request from the Environmental Protection Agency, nearby counties and citizens that one be conducted, according to the lawsuit.

Corps officials did not return a call for comment.

The Corps has since agreed to conduct an environmental assessment on the phosphate mining impacts on the Peace River basin.

“You’re supposed to do those up front,” said Tom Reese, a lawyer representing the Sierra Club.

The site, close to Polk County, includes 534 acres of wetlands and 10 miles of streams that feed the Peace River, a main source of drinking water for an estimated 700,000 Floridians.

Mosaic officials said the permit was subject to extensive reviews but would not comment on whether an environmental study should have been conducted.

Mosaic officials said delaying the project would affect Hardee County, which stands to benefit from a $42 million contribution by Mosaic toward local infrastructure.

… as county commissions in Hardee and DeSoto Counties open their doors to expanded phosphate mining operations in the Peace River watershed we are inviting degradation in our own backyards….

As crude oil from the BP/Deepwater Horizon well pours inexorably into the sensitive environment of the Gulf of Mexico, remember that only a few weeks ago Florida was debating the possibility of allowing off-shore drilling along its coast. The environmental community staunchly recommended against it – because the consequences of the environmental damage associated with off-shore drilling were an unacceptable risk to the economy as well as the environment of our beautiful state.

Likewise, as county commissions in Hardee and DeSoto Counties open their doors to expanded phosphate mining operations in the Peace River watershed we are inviting a similar kind of degradation to occur in our own backyards. A recent editorial in The DeSoto Sun complimented a decision by the county commission to approve a mining overlay which more than doubles the amount of land in the Pine Level area on both sides of Horse Creek that are designated for phosphate strip mining (an additional 17,000 acres). This decision by the commissioners has unquestionably legitimized the presence of Mosaic phosphate company in their midst and moved the county one step closer to strip mining operations with no regard for the recommendation of their advisory board or the will of their people.

We are told these days of wide-spread disenchantment with incumbent politicians who are oblivious to the will of their constituents. It could not have been any more obvious than at the May 25 Hearing in Arcadia when public sentiment was overwhelmingly opposed to the approval of the comp plan amendment allowing for additional mining by the people who live in the Pine Level community. As always we were reminded repeatedly that the amendment would not allow mining, and that there will be a rigorous DRI process before mining can actually be permitted. Yet, on the other hand, had the DeSoto Commissioners denied the expansion of the mining overlay that night, the door would have been closed on phosphate strip mining in the county – precluding a DRI.

The Sun Herald editorial extols the record of mine reclamation since 1975. In fact only 28% of all of Mosaic’s mined land has fulfilled total reclamations requirements. 37% is suitable only for “industrial” standards – that is, development like waste disposal and power plants. Mined land is no longer suitable for productive agriculture which is historically the basis of the DeSoto County economy. Reclaimed soil is substandard and is typically overgrown with cogon grass which is non-native and unsuitable for cattle forage. There is no denying that at least 40% of mined lands will end up as clay slime disposal – which is unsuitable for construction and agriculture, and considered by the US EPA as a “permanent impact” on the Peace River watershed. According to the Soil Suitability Index “where reclaimed overburden and sand tailing landforms are situated in the path of urban growth, and real estate values are elevated… such lands may be viewed as developable. Little if any urban development has taken place on waste clay disposal sites, which is understandable given the extreme physical shortcomings of clays as support for foundations.” This would explain why the vast majority of old phosphate land, even that which has been “reclaimed,” lies fallow and abandoned. Most of it is uneconomical for any kind of development.

To contend that the phosphate controversy is “not real,” as the Sun editorial apparently does, is naïve and inattentive. There is an abundance of scientific documentation on the negative effects of mining on the watersheds, agriculture, and urban development by the US Geological Survey, the EPA, DEP, and Water Management District. I suggest your readers go to Google Maps and check out the landscape from Ft. Green to Bradley Junction. Have a good look at what phosphate strip mining has done. All the water entrapped in those mine cuts and clay slime impoundments is water that once contributed to the aquifer which supplies our rivers and coasts. Also check out the 3PR website www.protectpeaceriver.org to consult the studies and other evidence that support our case against the phosphate industry.

ScienceDaily (June 29, 2010) — No significant differences in corn yield were found between organic and chemical sources of nutrients, but a Texas AgriLife Research economist said manure generates higher economic returns than anhydrous ammonia.

Dr. Seong Park, AgriLife Research economist, recently had his research published in the Agronomy Journal. The work was from studies he conducted in the Oklahoma Panhandle while at Oklahoma State University and finalized while in his new position at Vernon. The long-term experiment involved the use of pig and beef manure on irrigated corn fields, he said. The testing was conducted in part due to a rapid growth of animal population and density in that region, as well as the northern part of the Texas Panhandle. Park said when swine manure, which is normally stored in open-air lagoon systems, is properly applied and the economics figured, the effluent can be used as manure with minimal environmental and nuisance concerns. Animal manure, he said, benefits producers by reducing waste management costs and the need for chemical fertilizers because it contains multiple essential crop nutrients, according to previous research. Park said the key between animal manure transitioning from a cost (for disposal) to a benefit (as a fertilizer) is determined by agronomic and economic factors such as chemical fertilizer costs and equipment and labor needed to apply each. Anhydrous ammonia was the most costly nitrogen source across all three equivalent nitrogen rates of 50, 150 and 450 pounds of nitrogen per acre, with costs of $30.86, $54.88 and $126.95 per acre, respectively. He said the higher costs of anhydrous were due to the purchase price, which is not required normally with the use of beef and swine manure. Swine effluent had the lowest costs at $12.06, $17.98 and $34.51 per acre for the three application rates. The lower costs for the swine effluent are associated with the ability to apply it through existing irrigation equipment, requiring only minimal purchase to pump from the lagoon to the center pivot, Park said. Both the anhydrous and beef manure require the purchase of application machinery, he said, which adds a fixed cost. Because of that cost, beef manure application costs were higher than swine, at $30.52, $35.47 and $47.19 per acre, respectively at the same rate. Beef manure, however, becomes a more economical choice if the crops are located away from the originating farm of either manure, Park said. While swine effluent has a lower breakeven price, it is too bulky to transport off-farm to other producers. “The breakeven is figured by using the actual price of corn plus the cost of fertilizer,” he said. “During this study, there was a widening margin in the breakeven between the animal manure-treated corn crops and anhydrous ammonia-treated corn crops, which generated an increased profitability for producers and increased the economic viability of marketing beef manure as a commercial fertilizer.” Park explained if beef manure averages $2.20 per ton with a shipping cost of 50 cents per mile, it can be profitably transported up to 29 miles from its point of origin in the Oklahoma and Texas panhandles and be competitive with high anhydrous ammonia prices, as experienced from 2005-2007. Another benefit of animal manures is the improvement of soil properties such as micronutrients and soil pH, Park said. Throughout his experiment the beef-manure and swine-effluent plots maintained higher soil pH levels than the corresponding anhydrous plots. Additionally, continued application of anhydrous can lead to acidification and thus losses in productivity, he said. Appropriate nutrient-management practices should be implemented to prevent environmental damages. Park also warned that site-specific conditions such as weather, animal waste management practices and soil properties would need to be taken into consideration when adapting this information to locations outside the Oklahoma Panhandle. “This is a unique economic study on various nitrogen fertilizers using rare and valuable data from a long-term field experiment from 1995 to 2007,” Park said. “The next step is to determine best nutrient practices based on this experimental data.” Story Source: The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by Texas A&M AgriLife Communications. The original article was written by Kay Ledbetter. ________________________________________ Journal Reference: 1. S. C. Park, J. Vitale, J. C. Turner, J. A. Hattey, A. Stoecker. Economic Profitability of Sustained Application of Swine Lagoon Effluent and Beef Feedlot Manure Relative to Anhydrous Ammonia in the Oklahoma Panhandle. Agronomy Journal, 2010; 102 (2): 420 DOI: 10.2134/agronj2009.0166